What are the obstacles to Rytm Updates?

Elektron Gear Analog Rytm
#1

Hi,
I have just got my hands on the Syntakt and also own Mk2 Rytm.

I love both machines and I’m aware of the requests for improvements to the Rytm machine, especially in light of the Syntakt’s take on some of the Rytm machines.

In my mind there is no doubt that the Syntakt’s extra options for sound shaping the Analog Machines makes the synth engines even better. I know there are some strong opinions regarding the likelihood or necessity for adding the functionality to the Elektron “Flagship” machine but I was wondering - from a mechanical or electrical or programming perspective:

What are the obstacles for the Rytm to be brought into line with the Syntakt’s Analog Machine additions?

I’ve actually no idea what limitations exist physically for the Rytm with it being an “analog” machine. Does that make changes to the machine more difficult? If it was just microchips are there less “physical” restrictions? With analog can you “change the code”?

This isn’t a “Why aren’t Elektron doing this?” rant. I’m really intrigued by the process and obstacles that exist, especially as I really have no concept of how these things are even done.

Cheers for any insight.

Adam

5 Likes
Digis getting all the new updates while Rytm MK2 is being ignored?
#2

So it is a “why aren’t Elektron doing this?” thread.

1 Like
#3

Yes, analog/physical constraints will make changes harder to impossible, depending on the change and the existing architecture.

Some “chips” are basically re-wirable electronic circuits, or “software in hardware form”. These kinds of chips are called “Field Programmable Gate Arrays” (FPGA). “Field programmable” as in “out in the field”, I think. They’re usually used for turning logic algorithms that are usually written as software into hardware, so they run faster. I don’t know a great deal about these systems. I think some music gear companies use them for synths, but I’ve not seen them discussed around Elektron gear. I presume that Elektron don’t use them, and so the chips they uses will be designed for more specific purposes, and less flexible, and less open to re-configuration.

All circuits are analog as some level. The systems we call digital are analog operating in such a way as to produce digital behaviours. So, some chips in our instruments will be doing analog style processing (waves, filters etc… like synths from the 80s 'til today). Some chips will be doing purely digital work. The Elektron Analog machines mostly use digital for control systems and analog for signal processing (but with some digital processing for FX, sampling and routing).

Elektron can make changes to parts of this system, but when the feature/behavior relies on one part to be connected to another part, if that connection is in the analog pathway, it almost certainly can’t be changed after the units are designed (like before they’re even built - because the other machines which build them would need to be reconfigured too).

2 Likes
#4

Aaaah yes I get to speak again of the missing 2nd LFO. Ranting intensifies. /s

4 Likes
#5

Can you move this to the “feature requests” rather than this thread? Iwider drop-downs is a really nice feature request btw) Let’s leave this one for “what is it about instrument design that makes updates hard?”

#6

I suppose it is but not driven from a accusational perspective. I’m not saying I deserve an update or I’m disappointed.

My interest is more based on the actual steps that would take place mechanically. As I’ve no background in this area of intrigues me.

3 Likes
#7

This is really helpful and interesting. Thanks for taking the time.

I think I have a romantic misunderstanding of Analog. Like there’s some cogs turning inside the machine and they can’t be changed once the lid is closed.

1 Like
#8

That’s true, to an extent. Try to imagine the differences between the SH-101 and the Moog Grandmother. Broadly similar synths but most of the signal paths in the GM are “interruptible” by virtue of having patch points, where the 101 is fixed. But even the GM isn’t completely flexible… if there’s no patch point, you can’t change that part of the signal or control flow.

The Rytm and Four are mostly more similar to the 101, but have a few internal patch points (more on the A4, from what I have read).

2 Likes
#9

I left the LFO comment that was just sarcastic for posterity but moved the other suggestions to the feature requests thread. :pray:

3 Likes
#10

I hope they’re aware by now that we all want a second LFO. Lol.

Hope the next update is worth the wait!

#11

Are they, tho :thinking:

#12

Returning to the “what are the constraints?” aspect of the thread…

LFOs might be generated by software running on a processor (a chip for running software). If this is the architecture, it would seem like “only a ui + programming issue” to add a 2nd one. Seems do-able, given budget, will and timescales.

However, the LFOs might be digitally controlled oscillators (like the oscillators)… and possibly generated by a dedicated chip, or a chip that works like a Swiss army knife of signal processing. I don’t know a lot about this area, I’m just thinking about the VCA+VCF chips my Juno-106 has. They have two functions. Perhaps there’s modern chips with “a few functions”. Anyway, my point here is that if Elektron used such chips for the Rytm’s LFOs, adding a second one might be difficult as it’s potentially more a physical issue. Making the Syntakt enabled Elektron to add more hardware, or pick “Swiss army knife” options to support more LFOs.

They could attempt a hybrid approach (“let’s add the second one in software”). I can imagine that with this hybrid idea, or even if all the LFOs are software, the chip might hit performance issues if the maths for a stable LFO is challenging enough. Elektron seem, to me, to try very hard to keep the performance features stable and well within hardware limits. I’ve heard Akais and Maschine can slow down a bit when you use a lot of features. Elektron seem to take the opposite approach, limiting features to better control performance.

(disclaimer: I’ve built web software for 20years, following a degree in software engineering. I learned a bit about hardware during my degree but apart from tinkering with an Arduino for a few months in 2008, I’ve avoided electrical or electronic engineering. My vision can’t cope with the components and my maths struggled. I’ve never opened my Rytm and would struggle to identify anything I found there.)

3 Likes
#13

Haha, well they know (or should) I want it. I sent in a request. Wonder where they go…

https://youtu.be/YhsnR7BwMyo

1 Like
#14

Given the sheer number of modulations the first LFO can be affected to, I’m guessing it’s already implemented in software. Although adding a second one might cost too much CPU, which would be an hardware limitation.

4 Likes
#15

…if i had to guess, in a reasonable way, all “old” product designs will be discontinued sooner than later…

the new swedish focus and course is clearly set to more “mainstream”…staying small and boutique but with most possible margins…syntakt is a new chapter and once all other digi formats have seen their firmware updates that improoved the syntakt workflow, like keyboard fold etc, to let them catch up with st, all further updates will be st only for quite a while and the analog hi class instruments, and the models, and also the ot will start to run out of stock…one by one…

hybrid digital meets analog instruments in these smaller square formats will be their future thing…

so, no real updates for the rytm, i’m afraid, but a syntakt with an ongoing growing collection of new machines AND at some point, a new ot, a substitute sampler that has it’s own take on granular in the same formfactor with the same analog fx/heat/filter section…

#16

We can’t be sure, but I can see your point. These Digi boxes are probably the best selling products, so why not focus more on the product that sells the most?

1 Like
#17

Yes, but based on the amount of Black Rytm mkiis I see on YouTube it would seem elektron is still selling Many Rytm

2 Likes
#18

More expensive gear usually permits higher margins. There’s a reason companies make sports cars and yachts, high end fashion etc. It’s VERY profitable if you get the marketing right.

I think Elektron would stop making the Analogs and Octatracks if they weren’t profitable enough to keep the company going/growing. The Syntakt looks like a continuation of the Digi line, but as the “flagship” gear is still in production I don’t think it’s possible to say the Digis define the direction of the company. Yet. Maybe in a couple of releases’ time we’ll be able to see where they’re going. They move very slowly compared with their competition. They only bring out a new model every couple of years, from what I can see… and they pay more attention to updates and support than many other “consumer” companies.

(I say this as someone who missed the MD/MnM era so perhaps I’m wrong)

4 Likes
#19

Sports cars are often low-volume loss leaders intended to enhance the brand. The Bugatti Veyron is an extreme example - it had a list price of around $1M at one point and cost about $5M to make. VW-Audi group sold them to high profile buyers who would enhance the brand’s image. Car companies like Lotus that focus exclusively on sports cars are somewhat infamously nearly always on the brink of insolvency.

Yachts are even worse: capital, labor and waterfront real-estate intensive. All it takes is a few cancellations in the order book to send them into bankruptcy, where the company will often sell for less than the cost of a single hull (and require significant capital injection to restart production). One of the most technologically sophisticated yachts, the Maltese Falcon was built on a hull that was half completed years before but never delivered to the original customer.

Fashion may be an exception, because Louis Vuitton likely sells more $800 shirts in a decade (at a likely COGS of well under $10/ea) than relatively mass-market J/Boats will ever sell. TPI - the builder of J/Boats and many other US fiberglass boats - builds boats for fun, their cash cow is blades for massive wind turbines and other engineering services.

Rich people toys also come with expensive customer service. Consider the frustration people have with digi boxes that ship with wrong buttons. Now imagine a customer who has a firm full of lawyers at their beck and call. As well as security goons who will take over if the lawyers fail.

Big money comes from making cheap things in volume, and selling them to the masses. Or selling expensive services to price insensitive corporations. Boutique businesses are a labor of love. A fine thing to do once you’ve made your pile, but a more certain road to ruin than riches.

Back to topic: it is astounding that Elektron has survived as long as it has, and expanded. Please be gentle in your requests, it is likely a close-run thing.

12 Likes
#20

Apart from the possible physical constraints of the machines, all is a matter of Accounting. To destine company’s resources to a R&D on an update for an existing product has to be completely justified by the marketing strategy and sales prospetive vs. the costs regarding man hours and possible 3rd party assets purchase (like programming software licenses etc). Elektron has been more than generous, especially compared to the competition , in updating many times the OSs with valuable add ons. This is clearly in line with a very intelligent long-term marketing strategy that relies on the positioning of the brand on top (or very close to) of the electronic music hardware pyramid, based on reliability, very extended post-sales support and prevalesnce of even discontinued products. This has had a very positive effect in making the brand grow very fast in terms of popularity and reputation. So if more people buy Elektron, the company will have more power and resources to invest in R&D for product updates. Invite your friends!!

5 Likes